DNC’s Obama Certification: Merely a State-to-State Change?; Update: Both were Filed; History
See towards the bottom of this posting for an important update regarding this story.
Today, CanadaFreePress writer JB Williams posted a column discussing the two legally different documents that the Democratic National Committee produced to serve to the several Secretaries of State, in theory, certifying their presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
The punchline? The one actually received by the States did not include language specifically referring to constitutional eligibility.
Here’s AmericanDaughter.com’s take on the above-referenced article:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden were not certified as legally eligible in the affidavits sent to the states by the Democratic National Committee. The tireless research of political writer J.B. Williams has uncovered the discrepancy.
His bombshell article appears in the Canada Free Press — The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie:
Aware of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office of President, what well-seasoned professional politician would be stupid enough to sign their name and stake their personal career upon certifying Obama as eligible?….
The proper legal text used on the DNC Party “Official Certification of Nomination” document reads as follows, and I quote;
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”….
The “Official Certification of Nomination” that was presented by the DNC in all fifty states for the 2008 Presidential election, in which Barack Hussein Obama became the new President of the United States, was almost identical, and it too was singed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson, dated August 28, 2008.
But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote;
“- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”
The legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket was limited to, and I quote;
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:…”
Williams concludes that to cover this up in the face of overwhelming evidence that Obama is not legally eligible to be president would have required complicity throughout the Democratic Party and in all three branches of government. As a minimum, every one of the fifty state election boards must have realized that they did not receive the proper form.
We have to agree. We have been cataloguing the mounting evidence since the primary campaign, and have remained in disbelief that so many intelligent folk could refuse to see the obvious.
As Mr. Williams’ article goes on to state (the whole article is well worth the read), here’s a copy of the RNC document:
The RNC “Official Certification of Nomination” for John McCain and Sarah Palin reads, and I quote:
“We do hereby certify that a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the Unites States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;”
The certification of constitutional eligibility is there in the RNC Certification of Nomination presented to the state Election Commissions. It’s there in the document which the DNC had prepared, signed and notarized, but did NOT deliver to the states.
At first glance, I was rather skeptical at the original posting until I started to do some research in my own archives (I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the absolute yeoman’s work that Justin Riggs has performed over at yourfellowcitizen.com which forms a fundamental basis for what I’ve similarly archived).
In my Candidate > Qualifications category, I have cataloged a reasonably thorough treasure-trove of documentation regarding who establishes candidate qualifications and upon what bases.
First, let’s recall what the DNC rules have to say regarding eligibility:
K. 1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the
criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic
nomination for President or Vice President shall:a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last
election for the office of President and Vice President; andb. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the
Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate
in the Convention in good faith.2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States. (emphasis added)
Via the same referenced posting as well as certain other postings, while it is true that the candidate signs a self-ascribing document wherein they claim that they are eligible for the nomination by their party to be President, there is no other evidence presently required to back up such a self-declaration and this has nothing to do with what the party, per se, says about the candidate.
Instead, as I had reported here, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made her certification (as referenced above), she certified that Messrs. Obama and Biden were duly-nominated candidates for the party, not that they were eligible for such nominations.
The fundamental question is thus:
Why would the Democratic National Committee’s political heads sign off on two legally distinct documents but then send the one with lesser verbiage to be formally accepted by the States?
Remember, it doesn’t matter what a candidate claims about eligibility insofar as their being nominated by their party. After all, each political party in America sifts through a number of potential candidates as a means to whittle the field down to who they think represents their party best. Then — as I and others have clearly shown — it’s the responsibility of the political party to do such vetting and certifying that their candidate can be put on a given State’s ballot for that general election. At least that’s what States have claimed, to date.
Friday, September 11, 2009 Update: The wonderful thing about making postings on a blog is the kind of responses one gets — vetting of articles. Here is some commentary from this posting that might help to explain the differences between the two documents:
One source — via email — explained to me that certain States have different requirements for what needs to be on the party certification forms.
Commenter “Robert” makes reference to jbjd’s site (specifically, here and here):
If you’re not familiar with this blog, you may want to read the last several posts there.
jbjd.wordpress.com
JB Wiliams may not be aware of which of the two versions was submitted by the DNC in Hawaii. If the jbjd blog is correct that Hawaii required the “…legally qualified…” wording, that does two things:
1) It explains the two versions.
2) It places Pelosi in even more obvious legal difficulty than she already is over these certifications.
Her legal difficulty is election fraud in that she certified, both directly and indirectly, that Obama was eligible without having taken any meaningful steps to determine that he was. And this after Obama’s eligibility was being very publicly challenged as evidenced by his Fight The Smears website where he publicly answered some of those challenges.
What’s more interesting is that this particular story is already a part of the Kerchner v. Obama case (per “ramjet767“):
This may be news to some in cyberspace and some media but this information about the flaw in the DNC form provided to most of the states is part of the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit. See paragraph 89-91 and EndNote 16.
RJ
However, fellow blogger Justin Riggs chimed in the with the following:
Hi Phil,
I’m tired, and I don’t have time to look at this closely at the moment, but could it be that this reporter simply stumbled across the Certificate of Nomination that the D Party sent to Hawaii? That Cert was required to have the extra language. The rest were not, as there is no statutory language in those states requiring the Pres or Veep to be Constitutionally eligible.
I have a feeling that’s what has happened here, and if so, that reporter needs to dig a bit deeper before fanning the flames with rhetoric and accusations.
So, what’s the deal with this? Perhaps the best way to find out is following “Nick’s” advice:
One needs to get the certification documents for John Kerry in 2004 , Al Gore in 2000 and see if there really was modifications to obsfucate the qualificiation of Ovamit.
Saturday, September 12, 2009 Update: I am posting Mr. Williams’ update to his article, which still fits into my proposed question of why two:
– Update 09-11-09
First, thank you all for your comments. It is vital to the future of our beloved nation, that every American patriot awaken from apathy and engage in the defense of freedom, liberty and justice. The comments on this story demonstrate that this is happening, none too soon.
I want to respond to several comments regarding this story.
I was first made aware of these two documents when an anonymous reader sent them to me. The documents were posted here — Document #1 and here — Document #2and I provided these proper links in my September 9, 2009 column Tennessee Grand Jury Joins DOJ in Obstructing Justice.
A poster has taken issue with a couple typos in this column. They make a good point, but more importantly, prove a very important point about this story in that process. Typos are more common than not, and that’s why it is significant that the same typo appears in both versions of the DNC Certification document. Like my column typos, which spellchecker missed in both cases, they are a way of identifying the authenticity and place of origin of a document. I usually take great pains to cross all t’s and dot all i’s just to eliminate any opening to discredit a story strictly on the basis of a typo. In this case, the story is of such magnitude, that it was more important to get the word out than to wait for the normal editing process. My apologies for the typos, but they change nothing.
Upon seeing the two DNC documents posted, I contacted several state election offices and requested copies of the DNC and RNC Certifications filed and in all cases, received the DNC version absent the constitutional eligibility reference. Since the RNC document included the constitutional reference in all cases, and the DNC document did not in all cases, I made the assumption that the same documents were fax-blasted to all states. Some states date-stamp and some don’t. I have NOT viewed all 50 state filings. I recommend that each of you contact your state Election Commission office and obtain a copy of the document filed in your state.
It has been posted here that Hawaii received a version of the DNC Certification that included the constitutional text. I have not verified this claim due to time constraints. However, assuming that the “constitutional” version of the document was filed in Hawaii or other states, this only further raises the question – “why two different documents?” Contrary to the assumption made by the Hawaii Cert poster, whether a state requires Article II – Section I text in its certification process or not, the U.S. Constitution requires that all candidates meet those requirements. Further, asserting that only some states require the language in the Certification document explains why the DNC included that text in those certs. But it does NOT explain why the DNC omitted that text from all others. Why two certs?
The good news is – the Hawaii Certification proves that BOTH documents are authentic and official, that all matching signatures on BOTH documents are authentic and that the DNC used BOTH when only the one with constitutional text was necessary. It adds complete credibility to the story as both documents appear to have been not only drafted, signed and notarized by the DNC, but filed differently in different locations. Why not just file one version including the constitutional text?
Last, this story confirms that some form of a conspiracy to mislead and ultimately defraud voters took place at the top of the Democrat Party. No story in recent history is of greater gravity. Yet, some prefer to focus their attention upon John McCain, who was not only a well known war hero from a well known US Military family of distinction, but a Senate confirmed Natural Born Citizen who was NOT elected President. Others prefer to focus attention on a typo missed by spellchecker, and still others hope to derail the story by asserting that Hawaii’s doc changes the only question raised by this report – Why TWO documents? Why eliminate constitutional text from any of them?
This is a very typical strategy of the left, and its purpose is to deflect attention away from the real crisis at hand, and focus attention upon typos, other candidates not elected, and technicalities that change absolutely nothing about the story or the only question of concern, why two different certificates and why omit the reference to constitutional eligibility regarding a candidate who clearly does not meet those requirements?
I reported what I found in a clear factual manner, and even the comments seeking to discredit, further confirm the basis for the story. So, in the end, I must ask, what do you make of all evidence presented?
If I missed any typos here, I apologize!
Monday, September 14, 2009 Update:
As commenter “Black Lion” points out in a separate thread, it appears that there seems to be some confusion on exactly who was covering what and when concerning the whole party nominee paperwork process being sent to the States.
In part, the link to “jbjd’s” commentary on CitizenWell’s site includes the following verbiage:
People associated with CFP and WND; and people like Leo Donofrio, and The Right Side of Life, (and others) could not care less about the damage they are doing pushing my work as theirs; they only care about the spotlight they’re getting because of it. Yes; Leo and RSL posted this story, too; and even though I document the story is mine but CFP stole it; and I point out CFP’s malfeasance could sabotage the viable legal project these documents were a part of; they refuse to post my comments, or to purge the stolen goods from their sites.
In the interest of full disclosure (and my site bears witness to anything that I proclaim herein), anyone can see my own archive of documents under my “Qualifications” category — simply click the named block to the right underneath my Headliner area, main page for details.
It could be very well that “jbjd” has done a lot of research in this area; for that I certainly perform a hat-tip to them. And, frankly, I have always respected “jbjd’s” commentary, if for no other reason than they are likely an attorney, and I’m certainly not. However, Justin Riggs has similarly done a fantastic job in collecting an entire portfolio of paperwork at his site regarding this issue; I’ve only reported on the highlights of his work.
Honestly, if some of this story points back to “jbjd,” then all the better for them. I report stories as I get them, and I vet them as much as I can, given the time constraints of this site being a hobby and not my full-time job.
My recommendation? Let’s get all the historical links available and start pushing them through the blogosphere, assuming that this story does have legs.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a BirthCertificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Some people are simply too concerned with “credit” when the issue is so much more important than that. I’ve done a great deal of independent research and submitted the results in comments on various blogs, often to see someone else take it and run with it, without giving due credit. (Unlike Phil, who always credits the people who bring him new information.) Texas Darling, whose blog is currently on hiatus, is one place were a LOT of background was developed, by a large, collaborating group of regular posters. Much of what you now read on Breitbart’s new blog or hear on Hannity and Glenn Beck, was discussed there months and months ago. Most don’t care about getting credit because saving our Republic and the Constitution is why everybody engaged in this grassroots, group effort in the first place. Thousands of people independently research the same subjects, so it’s likely that many of them separately turned up the same facts, without knowing that it was already revealed elsewhere. Who cares, so long as the goal is achieved?
well i was the one who gave both
Justin and jbjb and to Orly and to countusout.com
all my contact information, and responses, from SOSs
with all the states that bothered to respond. Well
over 30 of them.
that’s ok
they know it- i didn’t ask for glory
only truth and justice
to prevail
There seem to be layers to this onion, and many stages of eligibility requirements. If the DNC has in its bylaws they select a candidate eligible according to the constitution, then even if the final form does not state that, it is implied in the bylaws. The history of the party candidates is they observed their bylaws. I think the major parties get a “free pass” because they have never broken their own laws. This time they betrayed that trust, and need to be investigated and if they solicited money from the public during their campaign while knowingly had an ineligible candidate, then they have participate in a federal crime, and the FBI need to get involved. Soliciting money from the general public under false pretenses and placing fraudulent ineligible candidates on state ballots. I would think their party bylaws would be as significant as a final paper submitted and even if that phrase is not on the actual paper they sent, since the states also require eligible candidates according to the constitution, they are guilty if their candidate is not eligible. There are three eligibility points, the party bylaws, the candidate nomination paper Pelosi signs, and the state requirements. Good luck, Pelosi!
Greg Goss: How instructive! So, if the candidate volunteers the disqualifying information, then the SoS does his job and strikes the candidate from the ballot. However, if the candidate lies by omission, or lies outright, or simply says nothing, then the Sos doesn’t verify anything and puts the person on the ballot, whether or not he’s eligible under the law or the Constitution. Got it. That’s what I call serving the best interests of the People and respecting your oath to the Constitution.
My email exchange with the SOS of NH back in January.
No we did not. Candidates sign a declaration of candidacy and we accept that. Mr. Mohamed; however, submitted a biography of himself stating that he was born in Egypt..
—–Original Message—–
From: Greg Goss [mailto:Gwg1955@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:46 AM
To: Elections
Subject: Re: Presidential Ballot Rules
So you are telling me that you verified all candidates documentation for eligibility under US Constitution Article II?
—– Original Message —–
From: Elections
To: Greg Goss
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: Presidential Ballot Rules
Mr. Mohamed was disqualified because he was born in Egypt; therefore he is not a natural born United States Citizen.
—–Original Message—–
From: Greg Goss [mailto:Gwg1955@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:22 AM
To: Elections
Subject: Re: Presidential Ballot Rules
Thank you very much for the reply. I have one question. On your website it list the candidates that filed http://www.sos.nh.gov:80/presprim2008/candidatesfiled.htm. One candidate, “Sal Mohamed” is listed as “Disqualified”. What was the disqualification for?
Greg Goss
—– Original Message —–
From: Elections
To: Greg Goss
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Presidential Ballot Rules
I can tell you what the law currently says regarding your questions (subject to change between now and next presidential election).
To be a candidate on the NH PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ballot, a candidate must file a declaration of candiday and pay a $1,000 filing fee during the filing period which usually occurs in late October or November of the year preceding the presidential primary eleciton.
To be a third party (independent, libertarian, etc) candidate on the NH GENERAL ELECTION ballot as a candidate for president, the candidate must file a declaration of intent during the June filing period and pay a $250. filing fee. THEN, the candidate must obtain 3,000 individual signatures on nomination papers — signed by registered voters in NH — have those signatures certified by the supervisors of the checklist where the voter lives, and then file those papers with the Secretary of State’s Office. There are deadlines for all of the above, but since that next election isn’t until the year 2012, I don’t have the exact dates.
I hope this helps answer your questions.
Karen Ladd
Assistant Secretary of State
—–Original Message—–
From: Greg Goss [mailto:Gwg1955@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:46 PM
To: Elections
Subject: Presidential Ballot Rules
This will mark the third attempt at obtaining information concerning the election of federal offices that appear on NH ballots. I have two questions.
1.) What is required for a candidate for President to appear on the NH ballot?
2.) What is the process for meeting or verifying those requirements?
Your attention is required and much appreciated.
Greg Goss
Hudson NH
How does one go about requesting these “certification” letters from the state in which you live for both parties over the last several elections?
Can ALIENS be President?
Maybe, I’m from MARS!!
MM
I recommend people spend some time on the jbjd blog. He has been researching this for some time also J. Riggs.
I have been trying to spread the news of this complaint form to fellow Texas voters. Right now he is trying to get Maryland voters onboard for this complaint. I got to speak to many folks yesterday at a Sheriff Joe event.He recommends everyone research their own state election laws and he can help get a complaint letter for you urging the state AG to investigate.AZ is not able because it is not specifically stipulated in their state election laws.
I also read that this matter is addressed in the Kerchner case and that is why Pelosi is listed as a defendant.
Bob,
“Yet the South Carolina certification (above) doesn’t contain the ‘legally qualified’ verbiage that the other (presumably Hawaiian) certification (also above) does contain. Why is that? Because the South Carolina Democratic Party made the necessary certification in a letter. ‘Mystery’ solved.”
Don’t you find it strange that the South Carolina Democratic Party certified that the candidates met the eligibility requirements two weeks before the nomination was officially made? Or that there were no names mentioned in their attached letter? Essentially, it was a pre-certification of candidates not yet nominated. I’m not sure about the relevant South Carolina statutes, but it would seem to me that such a certification would not hold up in any court if challenged.
And what documentation or other evidence did they use to verify this claim?
It appears that the Democratic Party of S. Carolina has some explaining to do – if anyone in that state should raise the issue, of course.
old1 says:
September 11, 2009 at 3:32 pm
If we had a real live functioning DOJ, don’t you think it would be about time to start investigating this instead of running defense for the guilty parties?
*********************************************************************
That is exactly right….instead our corrupt DOJ is trying to bring an investigation against CIA agents who have already been investigated and proven to have done nothing wrong…..people….when are we going to rise up and take back our country…..this protection of the criminals by our justice department is Criminal in itself!!!
I can’t say how many states and in what wording require from a political party to certify a presidential constitutional eligibility – yet I do remember that we already saw a few lawsuits trying to catch states in this affair, and the states’ uniform answer (and accepted by courts) was that the burden of proof in this matter stays with the candidate’s party, not with the state. “We take their words at face value and are not required to reasearch their claim…”
Colorado comes to my mind, then…
Curioser and curioser – with close to 2 million people marching in Washington, with a performance rating soon equaling Mugabe’s, the act of not cleaning up this BC story appears more and more suicidal.
Mane, Tekel, Fares? Hope so – I’m tired of this crew.
To all:
I realize very few of you read all the current comments
before responding….Justin Riggs comment that Hawaii is the
only state to require constitutional eligibility is not correct.
See http://jbjd.wordpress.com/ and read it fully. There is a
model complaint form there that uses Texas for filing a complaint
on this issue to the Texas AG. Texas clearly requires a candidate
to meet all Federal and state requirements in order for their name(s)
to appear on the Texas ballot. There are several others states that
require this as well. In Texas, by applying to have the names put on the ballot, the DNC is certifying this requirement, whether they state
it on their application or not. In Texas, the chairman of the State
Democrat Party applied for Pelosi, but did not make any statement of
certification. Copies of this are available in comments by redhank in the comments section on the jbjd blog (link above).
rqlretired –
Could you please email me the 2000 and 2004 Certifications of Nomination that you refer to above? My email address is juriggs@yahoo.com.
There are a lot of people who want to see those docs right now (I, for one, don’t really care – this whole CFP thing is a mess), and I’d like to put the “debate” to bed.
Thanks!
State to state change?
BULL!
wnd contacted the dnc and they had no explanation. The state to state explanation only sounds plausible until you think about it. There can be no explanation for holding out that phrase from specific states.
The one thing ol jbwilliams should have nailed down before he said it though, is that the one w/o the phrase was sent to all 50 states. It doesn’t look like he really knows that for sure.
IT READS: “August 25 though 28, 2008″. Should be “through”, not “though”.
What is the typo that is supposed to appear in both versions? I thought it strange the The doc reads Joe Biden instead of Joseph Biden when you are referring to VP candidate.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by therightsideoflife and Chuck Childs. therightsideoflife said: Updated Posting: DNC’s #Obama Certification: Merely a State-to-State Change?: http://bit.ly/3pLRSI #tcot #tlot #sgp #eligibility [...]
South Carolina Code sec. 7-13-350 requires a statement that “each candidate certified meets…the qualifications for the office for which he has filed.” (So does Hawaii Revised Statute sec. 11-113(c)(1)(B).)
Yet the South Carolina certification (above) doesn’t contain the “legally qualified” verbiage that the other (presumably Hawaiian) certification (also above) does contain. Why is that? Because the South Carolina Democratic Party made the necessary certification in a letter. “Mystery” solved.
That the RNC’s certification process appears to be slightly more efficient doesn’t necessarily mean the DNC committed fraud.
Nick,
The formalities would certainly be that much simpler, wouldn’t they?
-Phil
Williams has posted an update to his article. He still makes a good point: if the RNC documents contained constitutional certification (even in states that didn’t require it by statute), why wouldn’t the DNC just use the document with certification for all states?
If we had a real live functioning DOJ, don’t you think it would be about time to start investigating this instead of running defense for the guilty parties?
If the one with the ‘constitutionally eligible’ phrase is required to make this case, we can forget it, because the democrats will have scrubbed their files clean long before treason charges are brought up on pelosi. The copy jbwilliams has will be deemed a fraud.
That’s why it is essential to get copies of the ones from 2000 and 2004 to see if they have changed.
This may just be the smoking gun we need to bring the usurper down, with a great big bonus of taking down pelosi with him. It’s getting better all the time isn’t it?
Harry H,
Please read the entire paragraph from whence you’ve pulled that quote:
In other words, back when the research on candidate qualifications was being more actively pursued, the question of who and by what authority are a candidate’s credentials substantiated produced the forms for self-ascribing authenticity. Beyond that, the point was that while a candidate may declare themselves eligible, that does not otherwise circumvent the rules of the party whereby the party is obligated to ensure that their candidate is qualified.
My apologies if I was originally too verbose.
-Phil
FYI – This “story” about two different versions of the DNC certifications appears to have been first flushed out by a commenter on FreeRepublic, more than a month ago (i.e. not CFP):
Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:53:13 PM by STARWISE
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2304218/posts?page=173#173
Phil, I believe you are mistaken when you say “. . . it doesn’t matter what a candidate claims about eligibility insofar as their being nominated by their party.” On November 30, 2007, Obama swore falsely when he signed the Arizona “Candidate Nomination Paper” (A.R.S. 16–242), which declared “I am a natural born citizen of the United States.” And you say that doesn’t matter?
To spare the country civil strife, Obama must resign. Then he and his family can be flown to Kenya or Indonesian, in both of which he may still hold or can easily reclaim citizenship.
Nancy Pelosi must not get off so easy. She should be tried for treason and election fraud and be sentenced accordingly.
But if only a change in form wording from state to state due to state laws, then why are the RNC’s consistent for McCain from state to state. The DNC and Obama’s team were up to no good and obfuscation and were trying to limit the potential exposure to perjury charges to the DNC by using the full statement in only as many states as were necessary and thus only provided the normal statement to those states that made them include the constitutionally qualified clause, imo. They knew that Obama Article II citizenship status was being questioned and yet they did nothing to investigate it and did everything possible to cover up that issue. When they did this, they of course thought they never would get caught at it. People with a criminal mind and bent never seem to think they will get caught, especially some of the national politician types. JMHO.
RJ
The differences in the DNC documentation may have to do with individual state laws. The DNC is required to send out 50 certifications, and there may be some states that have very specific legal language required, which would explain why there is different language. To ascertain if this is why the language is different we would have to know where the documents originally came from. In the article the author does not tell his readers where he obtained the documents, so it would be almost impossible to do additional investigation. And without knowing where they came from also difficult to authenticate. It is a serious leap to go from unauthenticated documents to that the DNC and Nancy Pelosi knew that President Obama was ineligible, so the different docuemnts were to prevent some sort of perjury trial. That seems to be going to too much trouble when the DNC just wouldn’t certify the documents or release something that was not true. That would be much simpler.
Additionally, isn’t the entire issue with the COLB that was posted by President Obama that it is unable to be authenticated? So we should all be wary of any document that is put out there until it can be authenticated.
it’s per the DNC rules
another non issue
why get bogged down in another side track
stick to the main topic, also Hussein’s many
sign offs stipulate per the Constitution
this is clearly a non issue, move on
Phil – Earlier this year I noticed the difference between the DNC and RNC certifications relating to constitutional eligibility. Thinking this may have been something that was left out just to accommodate Obama I ordered copies of the 2000 and 2004 DNC certifications of nomination and they are identical to that of Obama.
I believe the other copy was specifically prepared to accommodate Hawaii requirements. Sort of looks like the DNC does not want to stick its neck out for certifying constitutional eligibility unless a state specifically requires it. I don’t think they care, period.
Phil,
Very interesting. They left the language out, you have to wonder if this was an ‘oversight’. Changing the language, especially from prior presidential nominees, would be a obvious clue that the members of the DNC knew that he was ineligible. This would also suggest that they had ‘meetings/conversations’ about the issue and discussed with the help of legal advice. The implications here are vast.
I would be curious to the thoughts from our legal minded bloggers. Can you claim attorney client priveledge when you have all sat down to plan treason?
Pete
****STILL NOT A PEEP FROM THE MEDIA…BUT WHO NEEDS THEM****
Get ready folks….the CRAP is about to hit the fan……things may be moving quicker than expected…..hold on to your hats!!!! J:)
********************************************************************************
Found at… http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/breaking-news-judge-carter-is?x=1&id=2600775%3ATopic%3A1627625&page=4#comments
BREAKING NEWS!!! Judge Carter is Granting us Expedited Discovery – Immediately !!!! OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CASE
I just got this from stopxspp. Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, who is
close to Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep. So I am confident it is true.
—– Original Message —–
From: stopxspp
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 3:39 PM
Subject: BREAKING!!! Judge Carter is Granting us Expedited Discovery – Immediately !!!! OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CASE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
—– Original Message —–
From: Jeff Schwilk
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: BREAKING!!! Judge Carter is Granting us Expedited Discovery – Immediately !!!! OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CASE
This is huge! Obama is going to have to cough up his REAL birth records now!
If you know anyone near Columbus, GA, please forward this to them!
—– Original Message —–
From: Neil Turner
To: ‘Jeff Schwilk’
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 1:18 PM
Subject: Judge Carter is ‘giving her expedited discovery – immediately’;
Jeff;
I just talked to Orly:
She has 2 good news items that she is very busy with right now:
1. Judge Carter is ‘giving her expedited discovery – immediately’.
2. Judge Land will allow her to present before the court in GA. She is leaving now to fly to GA to appear before Judge Land at the Federal Building in Columbus, GA at 2:00 pm tomorrow (Friday, 9/11/09).
She would like as many military supporters to be there as possible. I called Carl Swensson (RiseUpForAmerica.com), and he will see what he can do. If you have any contacts there, please advise them.
Neil
Below is why Dr. Taitz is headed to Georgia…..
News – Breaking News
Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009
Hearing scheduled in case of Capt. Connie Rhodes and attorney Orly Taitz
By ALAN RIQUELMY – ariquelmy@ledger-enquirer.com
A federal hearing has been scheduled in the case of an Army captain seeking to avoid deployment based on arguments that President Barack Obama can’t legitimately hold office.
A hearing for Capt. Connie Rhodes is set for 2 p.m. Friday, court records show. Rhodes claims the president is “an illegal usurper” and “an unlawful pretender” and that she cannot lawfully act under his authority. Defendants include Obama, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Col. Thomas MacDonald, Fort Benning garrison commander.
Rhodes seeks to stop Gates, MacDonald and others from giving her and others until Obama’s citizenship status is established, her complaint states. She also seeks conscientious objector status based on her doubts of Obama’s legitimacy.
Columbus Ledger Link
Hi Phil,
I’m tired, and I don’t have time to look at this closely at the moment, but could it be that this reporter simply stumbled across the Certificate of Nomination that the D Party sent to Hawaii? That Cert was required to have the extra language. The rest were not, as there is no statutory language in those states requiring the Pres or Veep to be Constitutionally eligible.
I have a feeling that’s what has happened here, and if so, that reporter needs to dig a bit deeper before fanning the flames with rhetoric and accusations.
G’night
Very strange that on August 28th, 2008 Phil Berg filed his lawsuit. Things might have been different if a day earlier or later.
The form that wasn’t filed is one hell of a souvenir.
I wonder if Nancy Po can still get her botox shots in federal prison? I hope her beloved Barack doesn’t do anything stupid, or she may get three injections in Indiana as payment for her TREASON.
Wow, just looking at the two documents side by side sure is telling as to who knew what,when.That little omission on the forms sent to the states might just have cooked the gooses of a lot of DNC cronies.Hard to say whoops when their own signed document originally had the eligible language and viola,the language and was mysteriously removed for the actual certifications of the states.Just wondering how far back all of them knew what is slowly coming to light for the rest of us.The more all of our wonderful patriots dig into this Muck AKA BHO, the slimier this hole seems to get. Good work JB Williams And as always you too Phil for passing this on to the rest of us.
This may be news to some in cyberspace and some media but this information about the flaw in the DNC form provided to most of the states is part of the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit. See paragraph 89-91 and EndNote 16.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-filed-at-250-am-20Jan2009-2nd-Amendment-filed-09Feb2009
RJ
Absolutely incredible. I recall seeing the nominating certificate online WITHOUT the constitutional verbiage and wondering why there was nothing about qualifications on the form or on SOMETHING to show that the candidates had been vetted. I wonder why they created the two forms…weren’t they afraid that at some point they would be found and the truth would come out?
I received a message from another patriot this evening which seemed to emanate from a plaintiff on Orly’s case with Judge Carter. It states that Orly has stated that Judge Carter is granting her expedited discovery. The next week should be absolutely incredible.
If you’re not familiar with this blog, you may want to read the last several posts there.
jbjd.wordpress.com
JB Wiliams may not be aware of which of the two versions was submitted by the DNC in Hawaii. If the jbjd blog is correct that Hawaii required the “…legally qualified…” wording, that does two things:
1) It explains the two versions.
2) It places Pelosi in even more obvious legal difficulty than she already is over these certifications.
Her legal difficulty is election fraud in that she certified, both directly and indirectly, that Obama was eligible without having taken any meaningful steps to determine that he was. And this after Obama’s eligibility was being very publicly challenged as evidenced by his Fight The Smears website where he publicly answered some of those challenges.
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY OBAMA DOES NOT PRODUCE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE & OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED & PUT THIS THING TO REST FINALLY!!! OR MAYBE HE CAN’T PRODUCE THEM!!! TOO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS GUY THAT NEED TO BE SETTLED…IS HE A “MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE” SNUCK IN HERE BY SOME “EVIL DOERS”!!! HA HA YEAH I KNOW, THERE GOES A BUSH LOVER!! IT MIGHT HAVE TURNED OUT WRONG OR HE WAS ILL-ADVISED BUT AT LEAST HE DID SOMETHING AFTER 911! THIS OBAMA IS STARTING TO SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF ME!!!!
[...] Right Side of Life — DNC’s Obama Presidential Eligibility Certification Doubted addthis_url = 'http%3A%2F%2Ffrontpage.americandaughter.com%2F%3Fp%3D2519'; addthis_title = [...]
One needs to get the certification documents for John Kerry in 2004 , Al Gore in 2000 and see if there really was modifications to obsfucate the qualificiation of Ovamit.